Excerpted quotes from a piece Tiffany wrote about why she would not hesitate to cover Emily Nae'ole's actions in the press with full scrutiny (full piece linked below):
quote:
When you decide to enter the public arena by being a council member or a staffer for one, you need to prepare yourself to be mentioned a lot publicly. It is the role of the press to be the government watchdog.
...
I left the office of Emily Naeole because I didn't want to be subject of such public scrutiny anymore. I didn't want to be in the frying pan...
It's a lot easier to sit at home or in the back of my family's surf shop and write for a few hours a day.
...
What people need to understand, though, is that Emily Naeole is a public servant, who is subject to public comment and, sometimes, public criticism. Folks, you are doing the public's work and you are using public funds to do it. You need to know your role is very important, should be taken very seriously and will be critiqued and criticized.
If you can't take the heat, you have to get out of the kitchen. Just like I did. ...
The press keeps public officials accountable; it keeps people informed, it starts and facilitates community dialogue. I am a fierce advocate of journalism, and was always trying to get Emily to see the reporterÕs point of view when I worked for her.
-- Tiffany Edwards Hunt, January 2009
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2009/0...a-traitor/
Maybe Tiffany should look at the above piece and substitute her own name for Emily's throughout. She thought it was fine to cover any detail of Emily's behavior, but when her own behavior is questioned, I don't see any comments appreciating the role of the press or the citizen in acting as "watchdogs" on ethical matters. Instead she characterizes the whole affair as political theater, a distraction, nothing that could warrant investigation.
Ironic that this "fierce advocate of journalism," welcomes any "legitimate investigation" as carried out by the police, but scorns the media coverage by news outlets she does not control.
Kathy
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
DiscussTruth,
"I wonder how many of these types of absurd attacks at TEH can and will be used during the upcoming and almost certain defamation character lawsuit that most likely will be filed."
"Especially if there is no legal finding of malfeasance!"
Are you talking about the voter fraud allegation, Tiff's eligibility to run for county council or the accusations of property tax fraud? Just want to make sure which one of those you are referring to.
quote:
Originally posted by TomK
DiscussTruth,
"I wonder how many of these types of absurd attacks at TEH can and will be used during the upcoming and almost certain defamation character lawsuit that most likely will be filed."
"Especially if there is no legal finding of malfeasance!"
Are you talking about the voter fraud allegation, Tiff's eligibility to run for county council or the accusations of property tax fraud? Just want to make sure which one of those you are referring to.
All of the above.
Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Allegations are just that.
Allegations.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
If she wasn't already, Tiff made herself a public figure by running for office, making any slander suit much more difficult. She would only stand a chance if she was charged and found not guilty. I didn't think there was really any dispute regarding the facts, as they are mostly public records, the only dispute being if they rose to the level of a chargeable crime. Should she not be charged, a likely occurrence, she would be nuts to initiate a slander suit that would air the facts much more prominently than what they now are. All my HO of course as I'm no lawyer, although I've been know to stay at the Holiday Inn Express.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Also not a lawyer, but tend to agree, oink, other than it would be libel, not slander. If you're a public figure, then to win such a case you have to prove actual malice. That might be slightly easier to do with RJ or Sativa, but I would imagine still extremely difficult. However, anyone can sue anyone, but yes, it would open a hornet's nest for the plaintiff.
There's an interesting discussion about the topic here:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-...negligence
Posts: 471
Threads: 68
Joined: Aug 2011
"You were hurt by his words or did you sustain an injury?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNzSYMHRHP4
[  ][ ][ ]
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
"[...] and my shoes fell off!". Thank you, 2liveque, that was amusing!
I don't think it would be at all easy to prove actual malice with RJ and Sativa. I think you said that because of a sense you have there is dislike between them?
But actual malice as a legal standard for defamation has nothing to do with anyone's feelings or ill will. It refers to whether the alleged defamer knew their statements were false when they said them, or didn't care (recklessly published false statements.)
If the person had a belief the statement was true, that's not actual malice. With a private figure, we have an obligation to really know something is true before we publish something damaging. With a public figure, our burden isn't to absolutely know it is true but to avoid what we know is false or could easily be false. Big difference.
As they always say: "truth is an absolute defense to defamation."
Sativa hasn't falsified anything, nor have I. Discussion of bona fide tax records and voting records that were produced by government agencies, comments on a roast that was captured by a recording, etc.. Discussing published interviews and recorded forum statements, published blog entries, and so forth ....
If the public's estimation of a candidate's good character is diminished by following an examination of the candidate's words and acts -- that's not defamation. That's public discourse doing just what the First Amendment intended.
But once again a comment thrown out that was off topic, about a hypothetical lawsuit, has accomplished the purpose of taking the conversation away from the real topic, and tends to intimidate people from speaking freely out of fear they will be sued. Ignore.
I'm not responding to that post, but rather the legal meaning of actual malice which is often thought to mean what it would in ordinary English, ill will. It has a specialized meaning in the law, which that linked article does explain.
Kathy
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Kathy,
Only reason I mentioned RJ and Sativa is because it might be slightly easier to bring malice into the argument. I don't think for one second it'll work, but if I were a litigious fruitcake that's where I would go first. I also like the comment in the website I linked to:
"Moreover, even after passage of time or leaving office, public officials must still meet the actual malice standard because the public has a continued interest in the misdeeds of its leaders."
Posts: 427
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2011
I wanna know the Lack's perspective on these recent goings on. I am sure he has some down right hilarious cartoons covering the subject.
|
